Second, they derive from Pharisaism.
Second, they derive from Pharisaism.
§ 396. (II) Concerning the Pharisees, it is evident from Matt. 5:21; 15:5; Mark 7:1; etc.; from Jerome (Epistle ad Damasum), Chrysostom (homily 52 on Matthew), Josephus (Antiquit. Judaic., bk. 13, c. 18), etc., that they were not content with the teaching handed down in the Mosaic and prophetic Scriptures. Instead, they added traditions to it that they called 
[“the second code of laws”], and they taught that they were as necessary as the written Word. Hieronymus de Sancta Fide discusses this issue in this way (Hebraeomast., bk. 2, p. 96):
In order for the arrangers of the Talmud to establish more strongly their errors and ceremonies, they commanded in different places that all their ordinances set down in the Talmud had full efficacy, just as did those things that our Lord God the Father established in the Mosaic Law. Next, they impose the penalty of death on anyone who denies anything from those ordinances that are contained in the aforementioned volume and that they had written. Yet they do not impose such a penalty on anyone who denies the words of the divine Law.
Lest the Papists make the exception that “those traditions were received from more recent forefathers,” one should note that they themselves peddle them as having come from Moses and the prophets. They imagine that on Mount Sinai Moses received from God a double law, as one can see in the book of the Talmud that is entitled Berakoth, that is, the “Book of Blessings,” c. 1. The one Law was handed down in writing; the other, they assert, was handed down only by mouth according to a certain succeeding order by Moses to those who came after him. They claim this in Sent. 1, c. Patrum, where they say, “Moses received the Law (understand that Law that they call the one given orally, as Fagius explains in his commentary on this passage) from Sinai and gave it to Joshua; Joshua gave it to the elders; the elders, to the prophets; the prophets, to the men of the Great Synagogue.” (See Galatinus, De arcan., bk. 1, c. 2; bk. 4, c. 4; Picus Mirandulanus, Apol., q. 5; and P. Crinitus, De honest. discipl., bk. 25, c. 3.)
Furthermore, Rabbi Mosche Aegyptius explains in greater detail at the beginning of his commentary on Deuteronomy how that cabalistic tradition is thought to have come down to posterity. He says:
After Joshua had received an explanation of the Law from Moses, he handed it down to Phinehas, son of Eleazar; Phinehas handed it down to the priest Eli; Eli to the prophet and priest Samuel; Samuel to King David; David to the prophet Ahijah; Ahijah to the prophet Elijah; Elijah to the prophet Elisha; Elisha to the high priest Jehoiada; Jehoiada to the prophet Zechariah; Zechariah to the prophet Hosea; Hosea to the prophet Amos; Amos to the prophet Isaiah; Isaiah to the prophet Micah; Micah to the prophet Joel; Joel to the prophet Nahum; Nahum to the prophet Habakkuk; Habakkuk to the prophet Zephaniah; Zephaniah to the prophet Jeremiah; Jeremiah to the scribe Baruch; Baruch to the priest and scribe Ezra; Ezra to the priest Simeon; Simeon to Antigonus; Antigonus to Joseph son of Joseph and to Joseph son of Johetzer; these to Nitaeus Arbolensis and to Joshua son of Perach; these to Jehudah son of Tibaeus and to Simeon son of Satah. This Hillel had many disciples, thirty of whom were worthy for divinity to descend upon them and another thirty were worthy for the sun to stand still in favor of them. The least of all the disciples of this Hillel was John son of Zachaeus. To him and to Simeon the Just, son of the same Hillel, Hillel and Samaeus handed down the exposition of the Law. Simeon was heard by Gamaliel, the renowned teacher of the Law. His pupil was Rabbi Simeon, who heard these things and is said to have passed them on to his son Judah, whom they call Rabenu Hakkadosh, “our holy teacher.”
At this time, around AD 150, traditions that had been passed on to descendants orally alone began to be written and put into a single volume, which they generally call the “Talmud.”